The High Court clarified that where a petitioner repeatedly seeks adjournments and expresses inability to argue, the Court may dispose of the civil revision petition with liberty to revive it upon readiness. This approach upholds existing principles of procedural fairness and docket management, establishing binding precedent for all subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR/5263/2025 of DIDAR SINGH Vs NAVNEET MEHRA |
| CNR | PHHC011235632025 |
| Date of Registration | 05-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure / Article 227 |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that in circumstances where the petitioner repeatedly requests adjournments and is not ready to argue the matter, it is appropriate to dispose of the civil revision petition, while granting liberty to the petitioner to revive the petition when ready. This promotes judicial efficiency and prevents endless delay while safeguarding the rights of the petitioner. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner sought to quash an order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dera Bassi, under Article 227. Despite multiple previous adjournments, no adjournment slip was filed. Counsel requested the petition be disposed of with permission to revive. The Court granted the request, disposing of the matter accordingly. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab & Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that the High Court may dispose of an Article 227 petition with liberty to revive, where the petitioner is not ready and repeatedly seeks adjournments.
- Lawyers should ensure that repeated adjournment requests, without readiness, may result in disposal with the requirement to move afresh when prepared.
- The practice affirms that lack of prosecutorial diligence can lead to conditional disposal, not automatic adjournment.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that the petitioner requested an adjournment without submitting an adjournment slip and that past adjournments had already been granted for similar reasons.
- Upon request by the petitioner’s counsel, the Court exercised discretion under Article 227, disposing of the revision petition with liberty to revive.
- The Court’s reasoning balances the necessity to prevent indefinite delays in court proceedings with the right of the petitioner to pursue the matter when ready.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought adjournment but failed to file the requisite adjournment slip.
- On repeated inability to argue the matter, requested that the petition be disposed of with liberty to revive it when ready.
Respondent
No arguments from the respondent are recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution, seeking to quash an order dated 09.02.2023 issued by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dera Bassi. After the matter was listed multiple times and the petitioner’s counsel repeatedly sought adjournments—without submitting an adjournment slip—the petitioner ultimately requested disposal of the petition with permission to revive when prepared to argue.
Statutory Analysis
- The proceeding was under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which provides for superintendence of the High Court over all courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction.
- No statutory interpretation beyond recognition of the High Court’s discretionary power to manage its docket and orders.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment affirms the approach of disposing of inactive revision petitions with liberty to revive, where the petitioner is not ready to proceed, as a method of effective docket management.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows existing procedural discretion of the High Court in disposal of matters, reaffirming previous practices.